Thread: Wolf Hall Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028179
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Anyone watching this?

I haven't been impressed by the books. I'm not a fan of historical novels written in the present tense, but I like a historical drama so gave it a go.

I wasn't too impressed by the first episode, though the the acting was very good and the interiors were interesting - some fun trying to spot places I knew. My mistake was to get the Cromwells mixed up, and to spend the first episode waiting for him to depose the king and invade Ireland, which he still hadn't done by the end of the episode. It was only then that the penny dropped, which meant I now had no idea who this man was or why we were seeing events from his point of view.

But it's been interesting enough to make me regret having missed the third episode. The critics have been raving about the series, other people are bored by it: what did the rest of you think?
 
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
there's always iplayer! I'm enjoying it, but having loved the books I think Mark Rylance is very wrong as Cromwell, wrong physique, wrong accent and has the voice of Flop, parents of small children will understand this, a cartoon character. (TC is related to Oliver by the way).
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I don't like reading historical fiction, but I do quite like watching it, so I haven't read the books, but am enjoying the series.

I have no idea how accurate it is, but that is not the point. The acting is good, the storytelling is good, and it is up to the standard one expects. In the end, it is entertaining. Which is most of what I want from it.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
No idea who Thomas Cromwell was. One of Henry VIII four Thomases that are often highlighted during his reign: Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cramner. Possibly quite arbitary as there were a lot of Thomases around but a good way into the history of England during that reign.

Jengie
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I recorded them and saw the first ep, didn't bother watching the second, and got really bored halfway through the third. It is so s-l-o-w [Snore] ... and Mark Rylance may be a fine actor but he's doing nothing for me.

And what really irritates me is the %***ing dangly earrings the women wear! They just look stupid (and inaccurate) with the headdresses. Dear designers, have a look at portraits of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and the rest - are they wearing dangly earrings in the 1530s? No, they are not.

Sorry for the rant but it drives me up the wall.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I enjoyed the novels - with some reservations - and I'm enjoying the TV adaptation of the highly-acclaimed RSC productions that were based on them ... it went to stage before going to screen.

Neither are perfect but they are intelligently done - and, more importantly - don't insult the viewers' or the readers' intelligence either.

The 'historic present tense' is fraught with difficulty and gets wearing after a while, but on the whole I think Hilary Mantel gets away with it.

I quite like the slow-burn approach of the TV adaptation too ... that makes a refreshing change.

The series isn't perfect, but its critics I would say, "What would you rather? 'The Tudors'?'

[Roll Eyes]

I must admit, I was a reluctant convert to the Mantel novels but I am a convert.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I am absolutely loving it. I love the slow burn approach, there's time to savour and consider what is being said and what is not being said.

I've only read Wolf Hall, which I loved for the first half to two-thirds, and then had to force myself to finish. But loved both the plays, which we saw last year.

And the only other time I've seen Mark Rylance (as Olivia in Twelfth Night at the 400th anniversary of its premiere in Middle Temple Hall), I hated him - he was so up himself. But I think he's wonderful in this.

M.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I am absolutely loving it. I love the slow burn approach, there's time to savour and consider what is being said and what is not being said.
That's kind of what makes it for me - a lot of it does seem to be unspoken. Dialogue is sometimes replaced by facial expressions and meaningful, unspoken pauses. However, there does seem to be some kind of tacit assumption that you're already familiar with the historical period, so when the scenes jump abruptly to a few months later, if you aren't, you may find yourself wondering "how did they get to this point? and who on earth are these new characters?"
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
Yes I'm enjoying this - having not got on with the book at all. I like the slow-burn and silences and facial expressions and the different point of view on Henry VIII's court.

I did much the same as Ariel about Cromwell - had a conversation with my son in law (a history teacher), who isn't watching it, about it which went along the lines of, "So whose point of view is it?" "Oliver Cromwell.. No... Thomas Cromwell... Was there a Thomas...? Cromwell? Somebody Cromwell... I'll have to look it up..." [Hot and Hormonal]

Mr Nen has nobly been trying to watch it with me but his knowledge of history is even more sketchy than mine, which led to him asking, "So who's that?" when the character introduced herself as "John Seymour's daughter." [Roll Eyes] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :
 
I loved the books. They were so vivid it was like time travel.
I'm liking the telly programme too, but I'm so glad I'd read the books first. Also that our history teacher was so so thorough!
It's a feast for the eyes, particularly the costumes.
Mark Rylance can make a glance speak volumes.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
I've not read the books as I'm nearly always disappointed by books that are very highly praised (particularly bad books that garnered a lot of positive reviews include Midnight's Children, Life of Pi and Cloud Atlas).

I gave it a watch. The first episode annoyed me for its nonlinear timeline which is one of my bugbears when reading books, so I'm still not inclined to read the books.

The programme itself does resemble a live version of a Holbein painting. Though it's most notable for flickering candles and an inordinate amount of pouting from Mark Rylance. Yet it's strangely captivating and I'm still watching it.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There are always cruel compromises made in costuming and even stunts. (If you are so unfortunate as to see EXodus: Gods & Men in the movie theater you will see them riding horses with stirrups -- probably for insurance purposes.) There was an article in Guardian about how, to allow for modern sensibilities, nobody is wearing a codpiece. Poor Henry, who started the fashion...
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:

And what really irritates me is the %***ing dangly earrings the women wear! They just look stupid (and inaccurate) with the headdresses. Dear designers, have a look at portraits of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and the rest - are they wearing dangly earrings in the 1530s? No, they are not.
This piqued my interest so I googled "Tudor" and "Portrait" in images and pretty quickly turned this up.

Jengie
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Admittedly this is 1550 rather than the 1530s - but those are some earrings.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
I'm really enjoying it, I take part in Tudor recreations and have studied the Tudors for many years so I was very familiar with Thomas Cromwell as he is a major player in the court. I haven't seen the latest episode yet but I'm enjoying the sensitive portrayal of him, most dramas portray him just as as manipulative and power hungry but this shows the human side of him. His love of Wolsley was well portrayed. I liked also when he pointed out that Thomas More is seen as a godly man but is responsible for the burning of hundreds of 'heretics'; Mantell obviously wanting to emphasise that her perspective is different to other writers.
My husband and children have cod pieces in their Tudor clothes...
 
Posted by Polly Plummer (# 13354) on :
 
I like the atmosphere and the acting but find it very hard to work out who everyone is. Obviously name badges wouldn't be right, but there should be some way of making it clearer.

I'm keeping the episodes I've recorded and am planning to play them all back later and see if it makes more sense second time round!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
The DVD comes out on 2 March - which seems quite quick.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
Loved, loved, loved the books and am loving the series as well so far. I thought it would be very difficult to translate to screen as in the novels so much is happening inside Cromwell's head -- but Mark Rylance's acting (for my money) is superb and manages to convey so much of what's going on in C's mind with just facial expression and tone. He doesn't look, physically, like I'd imagined Cromwell in the book, but that bothered me for about 1.5 seconds and then he started to act and I couldn't have cared less. So I guess I am sort of the ideal audience for this series -- I loved the book, I feel the adaptation is excellent, and I know a bit about the period so I don't feel overwhelmed or confused. I will definitely be buying these on DVD when DVDs appropriate to my region make their way onto the market.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
there's always iplayer! I'm enjoying it, but having loved the books I think Mark Rylance is very wrong as Cromwell, wrong physique, wrong accent and has the voice of Flop, parents of small children will understand this, a cartoon character. (TC is related to Oliver by the way).
"Indeed!"

"Remarriage. It's a King thing."

The scene in the first episode where TC's nephew (his sister's son) asks his permission to change his surname to Cromwell: that fellow is the direct ancestor of Oliver and Richard Cromwell. (As well as the confusingly named royalist, Sir Oliver Cromwell.)

t
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think it is visually very successful, the candle lighting works well - stills look like a period painting.

I realised it had made a a strong impression on me once I noticed I had designed my lead elf character in Dragon Age Inquisition to look exactly like Mark Rylance (the guy playing Thomas Cromwell).

[ 07. February 2015, 23:20: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The paps are after Mark Rylance now, which must mean his fame quotient is heading up a good notch.

Does anyone know at what point the storyline segues from 'Wolf Hall' to 'Bring Up the Bodies'? I read the former a few years ago, but can't remember where it ends. I might consider reading the second book in parallel with the series. (I don't want anyone to reveal plot spoilers, but most people do know the story of Henry VIII....)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
My niggle is that Rylance is far too good looking to play Thomas Cromwell who we know, from a very good contemporaneous portrait, was not a particularly well-favoured cove.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:

And what really irritates me is the %***ing dangly earrings the women wear! They just look stupid (and inaccurate) with the headdresses. Dear designers, have a look at portraits of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and the rest - are they wearing dangly earrings in the 1530s? No, they are not.
This piqued my interest so I googled "Tudor" and "Portrait" in images and pretty quickly turned this up.

Jengie
Later on dangly earrings did indeed become fashionable, just not at this precise moment in the 1530s (sorry, bit of a nerd).

I suppose I'm not gripped by the series because I'm just not a Tudor person temperamentally, what with being a Yorkist sympathiser and longstanding member of the Richard III Society [Big Grin] - I'm happier in the 1470s than the 1530s...

eta: and having wellknown faces play characters whom they don't resemble in the slightest doesn't help!

[ 08. February 2015, 14:59: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
Although i agree that Ryance proably bears little resemblance to the real life Cromwell I'm really enjoying this, mainly because of the acting and the staging.
I really liked the books so I have an idea what is happening, I think I might be floundering otherwise.
WHat do people think of the portrayal of More? I saw a couple of bishops weren't happy.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
WHat do people think of the portrayal of More? I saw a couple of bishops weren't happy.
In reality, I think most of those being portrayed were political opportunists. I don't mean that negatively, it is the nature of being involved at the highest levels of state at that time. When you see them so closely, it might not be very pretty.

In a sense, historical accuracy is less an issue than literary accuracy - they are seeking to represent a book on screen, and they should be judged by how well they do that, not by how historically accurate the portrayal is. It is fiction.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I'm watching it, but am not all that impressed. It looks fairly like how I imagine the C16 might have looked, though it's a bit too clean. It doesn't really look lived in.

The people though aren't C16 century people. She doesn't get inside the C16 soul at all. And as history, I'm fairly certain she's got the characterisation completely wrong.

There's one neat touch. I don't believe there is any historical basis for this at all. But dramatically, if one is prepared to put up with dramatic licence and more so, having Cromwell have an affaire with his deceased wife's sister when he is trying to get Henry out of a marriage with his deceased brother's widow, is slick.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
RC Bishop Mark Davies not happy about the portrayal of Thomas More as scheming?

To quote Ms Rice-Davies, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Like it or not, there is copious evidence of More's ruthless pursuit of heretics and of his personally supervising the questioning of some using various unsavoury methods, including pressing.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I got nearly apoplectic about people complaining that Hilary Mantel had got it "wrong" with her portrayal of More -- it's as if people don't grasp the concept of historical fiction at all. Obviously you are expected, as a historical fiction writer, to stick to the known facts of the events, but people's thoughts, feelings and motivations -- well, it's open season on those. By definition, you can't "get it wrong" when the people involved are long dead and there's no way to know what they might really have seemed like on a day-to-day basis. Plus, there's the issue of point of view -- if it's the story from Cromwell's point of view, then of course More's going to come off as a prick, and Cromwell, whatever historically-accurate deeds he did, is going to have a justification for all of them that makes sense at least to him.

In the end I just wrote a blog post about it, but, not surprisingly, it hasn't gone quite as viral as the pro-More comments have.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
As I said in my earlier post, I really like that she brings up points like this one about More, he was responsible for the deaths of many 'heretics' and was very much a product of his time and the court he chose to live in.
 
Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 
I love it but I don't know why - I find it somewhat turgid and hard work to watch but in general, I love Tudor history and the scheming and plotting.

A lot of the acting and casting I find unconvincing but I am gripped !
 
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
I love "it's a king thing" [Killing me]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I haven't been watching (though I enjoyed the book) but it felt like the right place to say how much of a gift this whole period of history must be to writers and storytellers. Although I wish the Stuart era got more of a look-in regarding historical fiction and drama, the sheer force of personality of the Tudors is undeniable. Anne Boleyn and her downfall in particular is just a dream in terms of narrative. Probably why WWII gets done more than WWI - the narrative structure of the war just lends itself to dramatisation so much more.

I am a bit surprised (and dismayed) that people didn't know who Thomas Cromwell was, but I suppose his power was strongest in that funny middling period of Henry's reign, and Wolsey and More (and Cranmer) would be more well-known.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It looks fairly like how I imagine the C16 might have looked, though it's a bit too clean. It doesn't really look lived in.
I had the same thought (for over-cleanliness is often a problem in historical drama). However the producers had other ideas: read this.

At least it's not Hollywood-sumptuous.

[ 09. February 2015, 07:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Yes, the royal residences would certainly be much cleaner than one might imagine, and table manners etc were actually very refined. Expensive clothing was hard to get hold of as it would need to be imported (England produced wool and rough cloth at this stage, but it was turned into fine clothing on the continent), so it was far too precious to get dirty. The idea of Henry VIII chomping on bones and throwing them over his shoulder is far from the truth.

The photo in the article actually looks quite like how I'd imagine Henry VII - so at least a Tudor, then!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, and Lucy Worsley on a programme last week about Hampton Court was at great pains to explain how people kept their expensive courtly clothes clean as - except for the undergarments - they could not be washed without being irrevocably damaged.
 
Posted by Fredegund (# 17952) on :
 
I was expecting the loathe it - another historian here, though it's at least 300 years too late for me. But I'm loving it as well. I haven't been a fan of Mark Rylance on stage, but I'm totally gripped by his Cromwell. Let's face it, there isn't a great deal primary evidence for character to go on. Even the late great G.R Elton of blessed memory couldn't make his charismatic in his lectures, and he worshipped the man.
I suspect we've all been seduced by Paul Schofield in "A Man for All Seasons" re Thomas More. This one is far closer to the tricky self-publicist and persecutor of heretics that his contemporaries might recognised. I'm really looking forward to the attempts to get More to take the oath - but them I'm a big fan of Anton Lesser (Two Shakespearian Actors, anyone?)and want to see more. (sorry - haven't had enough coffee to avoid that one)
I've only read the first novel, and also had a problem with the present tense, and trying to work out who is actually speaking, but I love the minor characters. All those gentlemen-turned accountants-turned spies-turned potential assassins. Almost reconciles me to my profession.
If you haven't seen it, it's worth a look. And then read Elton for perspective.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I think that's right - even the homes of middle-class merchants and yeomen wouldn't have been middens ... there would have been some pretty awful hovels that poor people were living in, though.

If anyone's visited the Mary Rose museum and seen the artefacts on show - everything from medical and musical instruments to ordinary sailors's clothing to weaponry etc etc they'd soon appreciate how well made and substantial a lot of Tudor bits and pieces were.

Meanwhile ... Rylance gets my vote.

As for More - he's well played by Anton Lesser - it's undeniable that he was a schemer, a chancer and a persecutor - although he mostly had heretics whipped rather than killed.

The estimate upthread of him having 'hundreds' of heretics killed is an exaggeration. Yes, there were probably a few dozen 'heretics' executed during the reign of Henry VIII - and certainly several hundred - perhaps 250 or so - during the re-establishment of Catholicism during the reign of 'Bloody Mary' Tudor when even King Philip of Spain thought she was going too far ...

That doesn't make any of it any more palatable, but let's keep it in proportion.

As for those with a hazy knowledge of the period and people being irritated by non-linear narratives and so on ... I'm afraid I don't have a great deal of sympathy.

I know it sounds judgmental of me but it's not as if these things can't be looked up online or in libraries - and multiple perspectives/non-linear narratives etc have long been a staple of literary fiction ... just get with the po-mo programme ...

[Biased] [Razz]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It looks fairly like how I imagine the C16 might have looked, though it's a bit too clean. It doesn't really look lived in.
I had the same thought (for over-cleanliness is often a problem in historical drama). However the producers had other ideas: read this.

At least it's not Hollywood-sumptuous.
I take that point. The Royal court was the Royal court. It would not have been filthy. And too much historical drama goes too far in assuming the past was universally squalid. It's something else that I'm hinting at.

So often, when one sees period drama set, say in the 1920s, the cars are all spotless. They're hiring peoples' cherished antiques, which are kept like that, absolutely spotless. The contract probably says they've got to be kept that way. But a real car, even if it has been cleaned and polished before it left its garage, only has to go a few miles and however clean the visible upper bodywork is, grub starts to creep in, round the wheels, in the joins, along the footboards.

Likewise, if I'm immaculate when I leave my house in London, by the time I've walked though muddy streets to the Thames, been rowed to Hampton Court and possibly been rained on, however much I want to impress the king, I won't be quite pristine.


And Trudy, I partially take your point about historical novels, but only partially. I take history seriously. So for me, the writer's interpretation has to be possible within what I know of the real history. Costume drama that portrayed Adolf Hitler as a deeply misunderstood man who lived at a pretty refuge on an Alpine Peak, loved pets, children and his mother, and wanted to make Germany and all Europe a nicer place, agonised over it all but was in hock to dreadful politicos and generals fouled up his vision down on the plains below, might make a novel novel but it wouldn't be convincing.

Hilary Mantell may project her fantasies onto Thomas Cromwell, and it may be an entertaining read, but the chap Shardlake works for is fictionally more convincing.

I agree though that More, like Beckett, is a more questionable figure from the way he's often portrayed. Their being canonised has got in the way.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Well, I'm not going to spend a lot of time in advance researching a historical period so I can better appreciate a TV drama. It's supposed to be light entertainment, not something I have to do homework for, and I expect it to be reasonably accessible.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If anyone's visited the Mary Rose museum and seen the artefacts on show - everything from medical and musical instruments to ordinary sailors's clothing to weaponry etc etc they'd soon appreciate how well made and substantial a lot of Tudor bits and pieces were.
I've seen that and yes it is impressive. I've also recently been watching the excellent Tudor Monastery Farm, another of Ruth Goodman's wonderful forays into the past, and was quite impressed by the technology and methods they used.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
RC Bishop Mark Davies not happy about the portrayal of Thomas More as scheming?

To quote Ms Rice-Davies, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Like it or not, there is copious evidence of More's ruthless pursuit of heretics and of his personally supervising the questioning of some using various unsavoury methods, including pressing.
I know very little about + Mark Davies, but from what little I have heard about him (chance comments ffrom RCs I have met etc), if it makes him unhappy, I'm happy with that.
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
With film portrayals of historical characters, it's always the first actor I saw in the role who sticks in my mind. Which in my case, for Thomas Cromwell, was Kenneth Williams ... He would bring an interesting gloss to Wolf Hall. As would Sid James as Henry VIII and Terry Scott as Wolsey.

I enjoy the slow pacing and the obvious affection for the characters. Jonathan Pryce as Wolsey was a real man, with flaws and virtues; compare and contrast with Sam Neill's depiction in The Tudors, who was basically Sam Neill in a red dress. I'm delighted to see a historical costume drama that isn't a bonkfest - which is quite an achievement when you think how much of the facts revolved around the private lives of the king and others.

Only two criticisms, one of which I know can't be helped:

1. The palaces, manor houses etc. look old. That's because, in this day and age, they are. Stone is pitted, wooden floor boards are warped. But, back then, many were freshly built.

2. Anne Boleyn's neck. She famously remarked prior to her execution that her head would be easy to cut off because her neck was so small. Now I look at it and think, "no it ain't ..."
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Small as in dainty, petite - Anne was a slender woman, and in any case the comment was made in jest. Also the costumes are accurate - women's dresses had extremely low necklines, and it wasn't uncommon for nipples to be visible. Low necklines make necks look longer.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
The palaces, manor houses etc. look old. That's because, in this day and age, they are. Stone is pitted, wooden floor boards are warped. But, back then, many were freshly built.
This is an interesting and valid point. This account of the production of the tapestries used in the programme shows that a decision had to be made about their colouring. My wife thinks that they made the wrong one.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Whether or not Hilary Mantel's envisioning of these characters will stand the test of historical rigour is an open question. Personally, I think her combination of research and imagining has a remarkable plausibility. She is an excellent author and both books are for me a wonderful and insightful read.

Of course it is impossible to do them justice in a six part serial, and the condensation is both obvious and necessary. But I am enjoying the honest attempt to do it well. I think Mark Rylance is certain to win an award or two for his acting performance.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This is an interesting and valid point. This account of the production of the tapestries used in the programme shows that a decision had to be made about their colouring. My wife thinks that they made the wrong one.
I agree with her. Like us, people in past ages liked bling. They also didn't expect their tapestries to be delivered pre-faded.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Small as in dainty, petite - Anne was a slender woman, and in any case the comment was made in jest. Also the costumes are accurate - women's dresses had extremely low necklines, and it wasn't uncommon for nipples to be visible. Low necklines make necks look longer.
You would only get away with very low necklines if you were very rich or very poor though. The bodice of this period is generally rigid and immobile, and any self respecting woman would not even be seen to wobble (my own petticoat bodice is reinforced with real dried reeds for stiffening, as was the Tudor custom, with some rather modern steel rods for extra support - the reeds are another reason dresses aren't washable!). When I leave the Tudor dairy I put on sleeves and a bolero type jacket to cover my modesty (despite this being 1578 and my consequently having a linen shift that goes up to my neck!). The Tudors were more modest than we think, though I agree that fashionable dresses were lower in the 1530s than 1570s.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmmm ... @Ariel ... yes, 'light entertainment' but that doesn't mean 'unintelligent'.

You don't need a PhD in Tudor history to enjoy Wolf Hall on telly ... nor to enjoy the novels. Ok, A Level history would help ... but that wouldn't be a requirement nor the lack of it an impediment.

Nobody's saying that we have to be historical experts to read the novels or enjoy the drama.

But Google is our friend. There's no excuse, to my mind, for anyone in this day and age to confuse Thomas Cromwell with Oliver Cromwell - as some Shippies confess themselves to have done - when all you have to do is key the name into a search-engine and voila you have Wikipedia - for all it's faults - and goodness knows how many other links.

How 'light' does 'light entertainment' have to be for goodness sake?

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But Google is our friend. There's no excuse, to my mind, for anyone in this day and age to confuse Thomas Cromwell with Oliver Cromwell - as some Shippies confess themselves to have done - when all you have to do is key the name into a search-engine and voila you have Wikipedia - for all it's faults - and goodness knows how many other links.
Retrospectively - yes - but you shouldn't be expected to know who this minor character on the field of history is, or every other character for that matter, before you start watching the programme. And I don't have an A level in History. It wouldn't have been much use if I had, anyway, because at the time, the syllabus my classmates were following covered Charlemagne the Great.

I'm not apologizing for not knowing who Thomas Cromwell was. Quite probably lots of people don't.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I think before Dame Hilary got started on him, Thomas Cromwell would have had a very low recognition score - well below Wolsey or More (and he probably got an up from A Man for All Seasons).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, Ariel, I am winding you up to an extent ...

I'm not saying you 'should' have heard of Thomas Cromwell - although I must admit I can be guilty of assuming that people have a general level of knowledge about these things - just as people assume that I'd be more familiar with the Periodic Table than I actually am ... ie. I know what it is but that's as far as it goes.

I didn't do physics or science subjects, but if I was going to go and see the film 'The Theory of Everything' about Stephen Hawking, I'd Google him to find a bit more about him before going to the cinema.

Even if I hadn't heard of Stephen Hawking before seeing the film, I'd imagine I'd be able to work out who he is from seeing it.

But yes, fair enough ... Thomas Cromwell isn't a household name in the way that Napoleon is or Nelson or some other famous historical figures.
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
To get back to the More Vs Cromwell debate, I'm assuming that as the series progresses we're all going to start feeling a bit uncomfortable with Cromwell's actions. At the moment we are seeing him in a favourable light, kind to his family, witty, self-depreciating. When he starts hunting down those that mocked the downfall of Wolsey and implicating them in the downfall of Anne, I think we will see him in a different light.
I thought in last week's episode we had a fair portrait of More, principled, encouraging women;'s education, but ruthless in his pursuit of those he considered heretics.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It'd be wrong to issue 'spoilers' ... but the two books Mantel's written so far are part of a trilogy ... and we don't yet know how she'll handle Cromwell's character development in the third and final one as it's not been written yet.

Yes, Mantel's portrayal of Cromwell is a sympathetic one - he's usually remembered as a villain ... but I think that even if we haven't read the novels we should be able to detect some moral ambiguity as Cromwell's career progresses and he becomes more and more embroiled as a courtly 'fixer' for Henry VIII.

Once his wife and children have died there's nothing for him but to press on with his ambitions and his machinations ...

The warmth and restraints of family life are now denied him ... he descends further and further into the abyss ...
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
More didn't 'encourage women's education' as such, what he did was to give his daughters the same education at home as his son.

He had plenty of opportunity to make a move for more girls to be educated, being a close friend of Dean Colet, founder of St Paul's School - he made no such move. By way of contrast, Erasmus wrote early textbooks for Colet and ensured that the first pupils had Greek on the timetable.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Count me as another surprised that so few (British people) on this thread had heard of Thomas Cromwell. I did neither A level nor O level history at school but remember TC* as being Henry VIII's fixer, if nothing else. And vaguely connected with Wolsey and More.

Has anyone else wondered to themselves how easy it would be for the son of a butcher to rise like Wolsey these days?

M.

*No, not Top Cat.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
OK, we now have a Cromwell Poll in the Circus.

(First time for everything [Biased] )
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I think both men were deeply complex, capable of both good and evil, and motivated by principles that were important to them. Kind of like real people. It's just that we're so used to hearing the story with More as the hero that to hear it from Cromwell's perspective is unsettling. But, as I've said before, if Cromwell were telling the story, he'd obviously have justification for his own actions.

Based on having read both the novels, I don't think there's any point where Mantel ever changes the historical record as it's known or tries to gloss over any of the unsavoury things Cromwell did. What she does is show those things as they would have looked from Cromwell's perspective. She does add details that the historical record doesn't give us, like Cromwell loving his wife and children and being devastated by their deaths, but that's not historically implausible - in fact, given what we know of human nature, it would be more unlikely for a man NOT to be grief-stricken at the loss of almost his whole family, than otherwise (unless you subscribe to a very simplistic and reductionist view of human nature in which a man who did bad things in the political realm could not possibly have been a good husband and father).

One thing I like in the novels (which I think is coming across well in the TV series so far) is that Cromwell's motives, like everyone's, are mixed. His Protestant religious beliefs are quite genuine, although he has no intention of getting martyred for them -- he genuinely believes the monasteries are corrupt and wasteful and that that money would be better used by the crown, just as he genuinely believes everyone should have access to the Bible in English. And he wants to get ahead and have something leave his son (and nephew/adopted son), so he does what his boss, Henry, wants done. And then he has motives that are on the level of the petty and vindictive -- like bringing down the men who participate in the play mocking Wolsey, even when he has to manufacture evidence to do so, just because he wants revenge. That's completely ruthless -- but at the same time, because we're hearing it from Cromwell's p.o.v., even that we see as being motivated by his quite genuine love and sympathy for Wolsey, and indignation at how Wolsey was treated.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It might be a generational thing, M.

Ok, I did A level history and have had a life-long interest in these things ... but, generally speaking I think there was a broader, 'general knowledge' thing going on back in the day - even among those of us who attended 'bog-standard' comprehensives.

That is in no way intended as a value judgement on those here who hadn't heard of Thomas Cromwell.

Although I have no idea of the age of those who hadn't done so, I'm guessing that they are probably younger than I am (I'm 53).

There were quite a number of popular historical dramatisations on the telly back in the '70s, 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' and Glenda Jackson playing Queen Elizabeth I etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all the kids at our school would have heard of Thomas Cromwell. But generally speaking, most of us could rattle off lists of Kings and Queens and dates and so on because that's the way we'd been taught at junior school - which was still very much 'old school' even in the 1960s - although university-educated bright young things were beginning to make their mark.

As for the social mobility thing, I always remember a nice, juicy quote from G R Elton, to the effect that the snobbery of the 16th century turned Wolsey into the son of a herdsman, whereas the snobbery of the 19th century turned him into the son of a prosperous grazier ...

[Big Grin]

Talking about Elton, I well remember him coming and giving a guest lecture when I was at university. I wasn't reading History but a friend was, so I accompanied him to the lecture. It was packed. Everyone wanted to hear the great man and were waiting with baited breath for the barbed comments he was notorious for making about his academic rivals.

His topic was the causes of the English Civil War and he took a very 'non-Whig' line on the issue, unlike Napier, his tutor who had certainly not invented but popularised the Whiggish view of history as 'progress' and who'd emphasised the Puritan component in the push for personal liberties etc.

'I remember being in that seminar when Puritanism hit Napier between the eyes,' he intoned before making a significant pause. 'Those little, piggy eyes ...'

There was a sharp intake of breath and a frisson which ran across the gladiatorial audience of assembled historians and history-geeks.

Elton was well-known for rejecting Marxist views of socio-economic conditions leading to these upheavals - he put it all down to the incompetence of the Stuarts and to rather random and disconnected nudges and grievances within Parliament.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the social mobility thing, I always remember a nice, juicy quote from G R Elton, to the effect that the snobbery of the 16th century turned Wolsey into the son of a herdsman, whereas the snobbery of the 19th century turned him into the son of a prosperous grazier ...
In our town, he has become well-known among the avine population as a very suitable place to perch.

Mind you, we have statues of other famous local celebrities as well.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That is in no way intended as a value judgement on those here who hadn't heard of Thomas Cromwell.

Although I have no idea of the age of those who hadn't done so, I'm guessing that they are probably younger than I am (I'm 53).
Well, you're wrong then.

When I was at secondary school in England we started with the Romans, went on to the Normans and the Wars of the Roses, then if you did O level, you did 1919 to the present day, and if you did A level, it was Charlemagne. It was completely unbalanced and is one of the reasons why I feel strongly that the government shouldn't permit the devising of "trendy" syllabuses that leave children half educated. There were whole swathes of history that people left school knowing nothing about unless they absorbed historical novels (which I did) and loved historical dramas (which I did). I don't remember every character in every book I read 40 years ago, though.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
When I read the novels, I thought that Mantel is having a long drawn-out love affair with Cromwell; this actually makes them very good novels, since she is not over-gooey about him, but she is very committed to the portrayal of him. I think the novels have a huge emotional charge because of this.

And this comes across well in the TV version, since Rylance (well, in my book) is mesmerizing. He has mastered the sideways glance like few other actors! And also the art of stillness. And also the one-liners, which are generally laconic and droll.

It will be interesting to see how they deal with his ruthless wish for revenge for Wolsey, I mean, will he still come over with so much charisma. Probably!

I am also curious about the third novel, when Cromwell himself is caught in the power struggles, and exits, sans head.

[ 09. February 2015, 15:25: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I said I was guessing, Ariel.

I'm glad I was wrong.

You could still have looked Thomas Cromwell up online before watching the TV adaptation, though.

If you want 'light entertainment' watch The Voice.

But you might have to look Sir Tom Jones up online first ...

[Biased] [Razz]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Joking aside, I agree with you entirely on the curriculum issues you've raised, Ariel.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You could still have looked Thomas Cromwell up online before watching the TV adaptation, though.
End of tangent, thank you. I've said what I wanted to say in a previous post and I'm not repeating it.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair do's - it occurs to me though, from what you've posted about the curriculum you followed that I know next to nothing about Charlemagne. I got myself embroiled in a discussion about him on an Orthodox board a while back - the Orthoes don't like Charlemagne - and it struck me that I didn't know how to respond because I didn't know enough about the bloke - good, bad or indifferent.

So, yes, I don't think we're a million miles apart in agreeing that there were - and are - gaps all ways round and that depending on where you happened to be the curriculum would vary.

Compared to my own kids' history curriculum, yours sounds very broad indeed.

All these things are relative.

Please accept my olive-branch. I was being cheeky.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
OK, thank you Gamaliel, we'll leave it at that.

Cheers

Ariel
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Cool, apologies for winding you up earlier.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
The Reformers, for all their faults, were pretty hot on educating women, much more than More et al. Mary and Elizabeth's thorough education is down to Henry insisting on it (particularly them both learning Welsh).

FYI I did Early Modern History at A Level and I'm 25 (I did A Levels late due to homelessness), which is probably fairly unusual.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

FYI I did Early Modern History at A Level and I'm 25 (I did A Levels late due to homelessness), which is probably fairly unusual.
Not as late as me, I didn't study any history qualification until I did a degree in my 40s [Smile]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I'm under 60 but the senior school I attended insisted that British history be studied from the time of the Romans coming to Britain to the (then) present day.

European history was added from roughly 1000 AD - thought necessary because it impacted on things this side of the channel.

Those pupils doing O level studied the specified period in greater detail (or not) the rest of us just carried on because no one 'dropped' any subject until the sixth form.

As for the Mantel view of TC and the Tudor court: in common with most modern writers she's showing far more interaction between men and women of the court than took place. Men and women met in large gatherings, such as at dinner, or on special occasions for masques or going out hunting or playing bowls outside; otherwise women stayed in the queen's rooms and men were not admitted unless invited by the queen or accompanying the king.

Yes, we know things relaxed somewhat when Anne Boleyn became queen but the daily routine of the women was still largely the same as in Catherine of Aragon's time: during the day the women worked at embroidery and sewing - don't forget this was an era when everything was hand-sewn and even aristocratic women were expected to make shirts for their menfolk.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, although they work well for dramatic purposes, the private confabs between Cromwell and Anne Boleyn's sister and others are hardly likely to have taken place - at least not without chaperones, ladies in waiting and so on ... sure, t'other Boleyn girl was accompanied by a minder lurking in the shadows on the occasion she propositions Cromwell after the marriage of her sister to the King - but it stretches credulity, of course, that such a thing could or would have happened - the proposition, I mean.

As has been said, we are dealing with a work of historical fiction.

It's like Rose Tremain's marvellous novels Restoration and Merivel, A Man of His Time - the period detail and dialogue is convincing - to an extent - but if wanted to be strickly historically accurate it's not too hard to pick out anachronisms and anomalies.

The main point, is that Tremain captures the 'flavour' the Restoration period, it's character and colour - not that the novels are forensically accurate in every detail. How could such a thing be possible?
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, although they work well for dramatic purposes, the private confabs between Cromwell and Anne Boleyn's sister and others are hardly likely to have taken place - at least not without chaperones, ladies in waiting and so on ... sure, t'other Boleyn girl was accompanied by a minder lurking in the shadows on the occasion she propositions Cromwell after the marriage of her sister to the King - but it stretches credulity, of course, that such a thing could or would have happened - the proposition, I mean.
I guess it's playing on the fact that Mary eloped with a sargeant in arms while her sister was still queen, so obviously wasn't adverse to lowly liaisons or taking risks in love.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair point, Heavenly Anarchist ... I still find it unlikely that Mary Boleyn would proposition Thomas Cromwell - as has been said, he wasn't a particularly well-favoured guy in terms of looks etc ... but he had influence and power ... so there is that aspect to.

I think it works in the context of the novel, however likely or unlikely it would have been in real life.

But as you say, given her elopement with a sergeant at arms, not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Such liaisons were certainly known to take place - hence the controversies and theories around Owen Tudor's marriage to Catherine of Valois ...
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
Mary's elopement may well have saved her life, IMO, as she was banished from court when the fallout came. Henry wasn't adverse to executing ladies in waiting who might be implicated in plots, as George Boleyn's widow found out.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
The beauteous Thomas Cromwell.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The beauteous Thomas Cromwell.
He does have a rather mean cast about him doesn't he.
I've got a Tudor style ring very similar to the one in this picture that I had made for me by another re-enactor who specialises in reproduction jewellery. Not that I can ever wear it for re-enactment as I am a peasant.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
In the fragment of episode that I saw, that ring is the gift/legacy of Wolsey, and Thomas putting it on is a Significant Action.

Doesn't miss a trick, Dame Mantel.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I think the Cromwell/MaryB flirtation is an interesting example of how far you can stretch the bounds of historical fiction. It's something that almost certainly DIDN'T happen, and unlike Cromwell's grief over the deaths of his family, we can't even plausibly assume that there's a likelihood it probably DID happen despite lack of evidence. It's in the realm of the improbable, something clearly made up for fictional purposes -- but it is not in the realm of the impossible. By choosing Mary Boleyn as a potential "above his station" wife for Cromwell, Mantel selected a woman whose documented historical actions showed that she was willing to sleep with and marry a man "below her station," thus making the scenes between her and Cromwell, while historically very unlikely, not absolutely impossible.

I think that brief flirtation is very important to Cromwell's character as Mantel develops him in the novel (and this does come across in the TV show too, though like everything else, there's less time to develop it) in that it represents a temptation for him. He's moving in far more exalted circles than he ever imagined possible: just how high CAN he fly -- and how close to the centre of power does he really want to be? When Mary sort-of propositions him, Cromwell says to her, "They'd kill you," but surely he's thinking, "and they'd definitely kill ME." Marriage to a woman of Mary's status while her sister is the King's mistress would be an incredible social leap up for Cromwell -- but also an incredible risk, and one he clearly chooses not to take.

So, for me, adding in that brief flirtation is an acceptable deviation from the historical record -- it didn't happen, but it's just barely possible, given what we know of Mary , that it could have, and its usefulness for Cromwell's character development justifies the invention.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm under 60 but the senior school I attended insisted that British history be studied from the time of the Romans coming to Britain to the (then) present day.

European history was added from roughly 1000 AD - thought necessary because it impacted on things this side of the channel.

Those pupils doing O level studied the specified period in greater detail (or not) the rest of us just carried on because no one 'dropped' any subject until the sixth form.

As for the Mantel view of TC and the Tudor court: in common with most modern writers she's showing far more interaction between men and women of the court than took place. Men and women met in large gatherings, such as at dinner, or on special occasions for masques or going out hunting or playing bowls outside; otherwise women stayed in the queen's rooms and men were not admitted unless invited by the queen or accompanying the king.

Yes, we know things relaxed somewhat when Anne Boleyn became queen but the daily routine of the women was still largely the same as in Catherine of Aragon's time: during the day the women worked at embroidery and sewing - don't forget this was an era when everything was hand-sewn and even aristocratic women were expected to make shirts for their menfolk.
Indeed, Anne hand-sewed and embroidered a lot of the infant Elizabeth's clothing, including her christening gown (on display at Richard III's former palace of Sudeley Castle).
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I think both men were deeply complex, capable of both good and evil, and motivated by principles that were important to them. Kind of like real people. It's just that we're so used to hearing the story with More as the hero that to hear it from Cromwell's perspective is unsettling. But, as I've said before, if Cromwell were telling the story, he'd obviously have justification for his own actions.
I saw this comment attributed to Hilary Mantel
quote:
Every public man, at the end of the day, goes home to his private house, closes the door and becomes someone else.
I don't know if it was a reference to her portrayal of Cromwell, though it seems relevant to me. We are used to seeing Cromwell presented chiefly in th light of the way others read his actions. She offers us a different perspective of a possible view of Cromwell from within.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, although they work well for dramatic purposes, the private confabs between Cromwell and Anne Boleyn's sister and others are hardly likely to have taken place - at least not without chaperones, ladies in waiting and so on ... sure, t'other Boleyn girl was accompanied by a minder lurking in the shadows on the occasion she propositions Cromwell after the marriage of her sister to the King - but it stretches credulity, of course, that such a thing could or would have happened - the proposition, I mean.
I guess it's playing on the fact that Mary eloped with a sargeant in arms while her sister was still queen, so obviously wasn't adverse to lowly liaisons or taking risks in love.
I hadn't watched the latest episode when I said this, so had no idea that her affair with Stafford had already featured.
Yes, Trudy Scrumptious, I entirely agree with your analysis. he has achieved so much to rise from his background to a position of power but that power comes with risk. How far can he go? I also think it interesting that the person he loves is a much more simple character but even more forbidden.
BroJames, that is a very helpful quote [Smile]

[ 10. February 2015, 17:32: Message edited by: Heavenly Anarchist ]
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
Are people still sticking with it? I gather from some reviews of Wednesday's episode numbers watching have dropped off and people are complaining that it is too dark, too confusing etc.
I still think it's the best thing i've seen in ages and if I am soemtimes struggling to work out who people are it doesn't matter due the wonders of the acting, edting and general look of the thing.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
Are people still sticking with it? I gather from some reviews of Wednesday's episode numbers watching have dropped off and people are complaining that it is too dark, too confusing etc.
I still think it's the best thing i've seen in ages and if I am soemtimes struggling to work out who people are it doesn't matter due the wonders of the acting, edting and general look of the thing.
I like that it is realistic, Tudor buildings would have been dark.
In any story it takes a while for characters to develop, we are seeing a portrayal of how a courtier is getting to know people, he's working out who the people are too. I think this is very clever. He keeps identifying people by name; Mark Smeaton, Henry Norris, etc, and when he names someone he is telling us that they will have a key role in how the plot will develop.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Re Mary Boleyn and her marriage to William Stafford:

This is unlikely to have been the mésalliance that we would assume today. Stafford was a younger son of an armigerous family and was probably attached to the household of a powerful aristocrat, which would be how he and Mary Boleyn met.

After Mary returned to court to serve in her sister's suite, Stafford was given a position among Henry VIII's gentlemen and was knighted by him at some time in 1535 - we know this because from this time on Mary is referred to as Lady Stafford.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Enjoying it a lot. The non-frenetic pace gives you a chance to observe and reflect.

Re: all that candlelight thing - if it's causing you problems, switch off all the lights and watch it in the dark. It's worth doing anyway and adds to the atmosphere.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The beauteous Thomas Cromwell.
Rylance needs to start hitting the pies!

I tried the books, couldn't get on with them at all but am loving the adaption. Really looking forward to seeing how it unfolds. (I know the story, it's more how they're going to get us there)

Tubbs
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
Honest Ron Bacardi said:
quote:
Re: all that candlelight thing - if it's causing you problems, switch off all the lights and watch it in the dark. It's worth doing anyway and adds to the atmosphere.
We've taken to watching it with the lights off, a candle in the grate and a glass or two of home-made damson gin. Definetly adds to the atmosephere. [Biased]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Damson gin? Recipe thread?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Rylance needs to start hitting the pies!
Yes, you could see how Mary Boleyn could have fancied him if he'd looked like Mark Rylance. It's a lot more difficult to imagine anyone looking at that portrait and going "Phwooarr". Or whatever the Elizabethan equivalent was. "Gadzooks", perhaps.

quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
Are people still sticking with it? I gather from some reviews of Wednesday's episode numbers watching have dropped off and people are complaining that it is too dark, too confusing etc.
I didn't even notice the dark bits, but am quite used to candlelight and dim surroundings. I've missed two episodes now and haven't caught up (iPlayer isn't an option), but may borrow the DVD from the library when available. Still ambivalent about this series and not convinced by Damian Lewis' Henry VIII. He seemed a bit weak I thought.
 
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :
 
Did anyone catch the Michael Wood programme about Shakespeare's mother yesterday? It was a very nice companion piece to Wolf Hall, detailing what was going on in everyday lives in the Midlands, while all the high faultin' political chess-playing was going on elsewhere.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Did anyone catch the Michael Wood programme about Shakespeare's mother yesterday? It was a very nice companion piece to Wolf Hall, detailing what was going on in everyday lives in the Midlands, while all the high faultin' political chess-playing was going on elsewhere.
I haven't yet (I don't have a TV) but will catch up on iPlayer later. I do like Michael Wood.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I watched it. Who knew wool rustling was so lucrative and so dangerous? You can imagine Tudor wide boys muttering out of the corners of their mouths - wanna see some white stuff? 100 % pure, guaranteed...yeah, fleece....
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I don't think Cromwell looks too bad in the portrait. He comes across as a slightly overweight businessman with a ruthless streak. Men of that ilk don't seem to be entirely unsuccessful with the ladies.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think Cromwell looks too bad in the portrait. He comes across as a slightly overweight businessman with a ruthless streak. Men of that ilk don't seem to be entirely unsuccessful with the ladies.
That's much more who the real one was than the Mantel version of him.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Did anyone catch the Michael Wood programme about Shakespeare's mother yesterday? It was a very nice companion piece to Wolf Hall, detailing what was going on in everyday lives in the Midlands, while all the high faultin' political chess-playing was going on elsewhere.
The little I've seen of it so far looks really good, and brings back lots of very happy memories of that part of the world and Mary Arden's Farm, which is one of my favourite Shakespearian attractions. Beautiful scenery. Looking forward to seeing some more of the programme at a time when it doesn't eat my bandwidth so much - iPlayer is annoying.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I watched it. Who knew wool rustling was so lucrative and so dangerous? You can imagine Tudor wide boys muttering out of the corners of their mouths - wanna see some white stuff? 100 % pure, guaranteed...yeah, fleece....
The speaker of the House of Lords sits on "The Woolsack", which is a representation of what the entire economy of the country was built on.

Today, it should probably be built on the bodies of bankers. Which would be a good use of them.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
There was a brilliant scene in the last episode where Cromwell was having a final conversation with More in the Tower. Half of Mark Rylance's face lit, half in darkness,I think symbolising the dark and light sides of Cromwell's character. No doubt the dark side will become stronger in the remaining episodes. Useful for a sermon on 'Lighten our darkness' which I'll be delivering later today!
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Really enjoying it.
Part of what makes it compelling, I think, is that, even at 500 years distance, we all have some dogs, and often conflicting ones in the fight, culturally, socially and ecclesiastically. Plus there are no pantomime goodies and baddies everyone is flawed in different and varying ways - just like real life.
I've now started the books.
One thing that is weird is watching Bing with my 2 year old godson - Mark Rylance voices "Flop" !
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
My sketchy sources have failed me and I have missed episodes 4 & 5. May have to wait till it's legally on TV on this side of the Atlantic.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think Cromwell looks too bad in the portrait. He comes across as a slightly overweight businessman with a ruthless streak. Men of that ilk don't seem to be entirely unsuccessful with the ladies.
That's much more who the real one was than the Mantel version of him.
Doubt that, myself. The books give a view of Cromwell and others which is more consistent with the often terrifying power Henry VIII wielded in practice, and the arbitrary aspects of that power.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I am really enjoying the series. I've read Wolf Hall & am about 1/3 of the way through Bring Up The Bodies. Rylance is brilliant, as is Anton Lesser. Mind you, I have soft spot a mile wide for AL, and have had since he was the voice of Falco in a Radio4 adaptation of the Lindsey Davis novels.

Cromwell is portrayed very sympathetically, and so far I don't see him as having done anything very evil. So far.......I haven't got to the bit in the books where he goes after those implicated in Wolsey's downfall.

The thing that comes over to me is the sheer desperation - that of Henry for a son, and of everyone else to save their own heads. Cromwell seems decent (if flawed) enough - Henry is the real villain of the piece. I know that shouldn't be a surprise, but the sheer venom of his attacks on women ("witchcraft? Sorcery? Women do that, don't they?" "The queen is unable to bear me a son") took me back a bit. Yes, I know, women had a rough time in Tudor England, News at 10. But still, it struck me.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Cromwell is portrayed very sympathetically, and so far I don't see him as having done anything very evil.
Sympathetic, yet you can tell he's a monster. It is good to see a complex character (Damian Lewis's Henry is another).
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
It is interesting the way he retains our sympathy even when he is setting up spy networks and trying to outwit everyone. There were a couple of points in last weeks episode that grated slightly though. Did people know about CPR (the bit where Cromwell hit the assuemd dead Henry's chest? and at one point Jane Seymour says something about finding a prayer that will 'fit the bill', was that a phrase of the time?
I'm also interested in Lady Rochford. I've read The Other Boleyn Girl which I assume isn't exactly acurate history and she was a bitch in that, and she's a bitch in Wolf Hall too. Is there any historical evidence to back that up?
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I have certainly never read any portrayal of the period in any historical fiction where Lady Rochford was not portrayed as a bitch, although I think someone's written a novel from her p.o.v. which I haven't read, and presumably she would have to come off a bit more sympathetic in that. She's generally painted as one of the villains of the piece even more thoroughly than Cromwell is.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
The Wikipedia page on Jane gives a good overview of how she's been portrayed in popular treatments of the Tudor story.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Cromwell is portrayed very sympathetically, and so far I don't see him as having done anything very evil.
Sympathetic, yet you can tell he's a monster. It is good to see a complex character (Damian Lewis's Henry is another).
I'm not sure we're going to get "monster". Have you read Mantel's A Place of Greater Safety? I don't want to say who the central character is, as that would have been a massive spoiler for me, but he also gets a very sympathetic betrayal.

Mantel makes Cromwell a man of almost modern sensibilities in many respects, but there is no doubt that those were monstrous cruel times.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
There were a couple of points in last weeks episode that grated slightly though. Did people know about CPR (the bit where Cromwell hit the assuemd dead Henry's chest? and at one point Jane Seymour says something about finding a prayer that will 'fit the bill', was that a phrase of the time?
I wasn't not too worried about the language, as no-one is speaking in Olde English (though it did jar a bit). The CPR though was more worrying.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:

I'm also interested in Lady Rochford. I've read The Other Boleyn Girl which I assume isn't exactly acurate history and she was a bitch in that, and she's a bitch in Wolf Hall too. Is there any historical evidence to back that up?
I've always assumed her poor reputation was because it was her testimony that was responsible for her husband's execution, so hardly a loyal loving wife.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
There were a couple of points in last weeks episode that grated slightly though. Did people know about CPR (the bit where Cromwell hit the assuemd dead Henry's chest? and at one point Jane Seymour says something about finding a prayer that will 'fit the bill', was that a phrase of the time?
I wasn't not too worried about the language, as no-one is speaking in Olde English (though it did jar a bit). The CPR though was more worrying.
It wasn't really cpr though was it ? Sorta plausible - though not in the historical record.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:

I'm also interested in Lady Rochford. I've read The Other Boleyn Girl which I assume isn't exactly acurate history and she was a bitch in that, and she's a bitch in Wolf Hall too. Is there any historical evidence to back that up?
I've always assumed her poor reputation was because it was her testimony that was responsible for her husband's execution, so hardly a loyal loving wife.
It's difficult to avoid the equation 'giving evidence that procures the beheading of your husband - however much of a slob he might be = bitch in spades'.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Hilary Mantell may project her fantasies onto Thomas Cromwell, and it may be an entertaining read, but the chap Shardlake works for is fictionally more convincing.
I haven't read or seen "Wolf Hall" but I am on the third of the Shardlake books and I think they're brilliant. Thomas Cromwell is portrayed as driven, but there is a glimpse of his humanity.

And yes, Lady Rochdale is portrayed as a bitch by C.J Sansom (author of the Shardlake series) too.

Huia
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
I've read the first Shardlake book when I got it free one World Book Night. I thought it must be a way along in the series as the characters seemed so well established, but I've just looked on Amazon and it's the first, so I've just downloaded the second.
From what I remember of Dissolution Cromwell in the Sharlake books is rather like Mantel's version. Are they both basing it on reserach or is it them both having the same idea?
As an aside I was brough up with the idea that the disolussion of the monestries was a 'good thing' as they were corrupt. Now having read The Stripping of the Altars and being a Catholic convert I'm sure the truth was a bit more nuanced than that
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I am really enjoying the series. I've read Wolf Hall & am about 1/3 of the way through Bring Up The Bodies. Rylance is brilliant, as is Anton Lesser. Mind you, I have soft spot a mile wide for AL, and have had since he was the voice of Falco in a Radio4 adaptation of the Lindsey Davis novels.

Cromwell is portrayed very sympathetically, and so far I don't see him as having done anything very evil. So far.......I haven't got to the bit in the books where he goes after those implicated in Wolsey's downfall.

The thing that comes over to me is the sheer desperation - that of Henry for a son, and of everyone else to save their own heads. Cromwell seems decent (if flawed) enough - Henry is the real villain of the piece. I know that shouldn't be a surprise, but the sheer venom of his attacks on women ("witchcraft? Sorcery? Women do that, don't they?" "The queen is unable to bear me a son") took me back a bit. Yes, I know, women had a rough time in Tudor England, News at 10. But still, it struck me.
Before Mary came to the throne, England had never had a female who'd managed to hold the throne successfully [eta: in her own right]. The last time - Matilida and Stephen - there had been a civil war. Sons were seen as vital for securing the succession.

As for the women thing, that's what people at the time thought. Not great, but that's what they thought!

Tubbs

[ 27. February 2015, 15:26: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
What did everyone think of the last episode? The last few minutes with the execution of Ann was one of the bleakest things I'd ever seen on television. I thought the way the spectators couldn't really hear her last speech was probably all too realistic. The acting through out has been amazing, and as the Guardian review (I think it was the Guardian) said even those with small parts like the executioner were memorable.
My mother in law doesn't think Rylance was tough enough for the part, and I see her point, in the discussion with Kirsty Walk afterwards he came over as a very gentle man. Still I think he did a great job, and that last scene when he seems to have taken in what it is he has done and is staring into the abyss was masterfully done.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I found the last episode hard to watch. There was the sense of doom rushing to meet various characters, and the pitiable end of Anne.

I thought it was because Rylance is a sensitive and intelligent actor, that his descent into the abyss was the more ghastly - Faustian maybe.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Having finally watched the final episode, I wish to make a couple of points. First, I thought Claire Foy was very good from her petulance to her sensitivity. Second, I found the legalities interesting in that even the king's actions had to have at least an appearance of legality.

Overall, I thought this was excellent and really enjoyed it and didn't find it slow-paced at all.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
I found the legalities interesting in that even the king's actions had to have at least an appearance of legality.
So much of it made me think of Soviet Russia and Stalin's machinations: Solzhenitsyn's "First Circle" in a Tudor context, with Cromwell as Beria. Ultimately everybody - even Henry - was trapped in a complex web larger than any individual.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
I thought the way the spectators couldn't really hear her last speech was probably all too realistic.
Does anyone know if Mantel/Kosminsky used her actual recorded words?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Just to add - I thought the last episode was masterly - and completely chilling.

The execution scene in 'Bring Up The Bodies' is chillingly well handled ... I once went on a Guardian weekend course on writing historical novels (I'm hoping to write one and have dabbled a bit) and one of the exercises involved comparing the two extant contemporary accounts of Anne Boleyn's execution with the way it appears in three historical novels.

The idea was to spot what details the authors had chosen to include and how they had presented the historical material ... as well as to look at some of the stylistic aspects.

Without naming (or disparaging) the other two, the Mantel version was far and aware the most powerful piece of writing. We were asked to read it aloud around the table - each picking up from a point where the previous reader had left off.

At the end we all sat in silence for a moment - no-one spoke. We were all stunned.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Baptist Trainfan - the Mantel version is based very closely on the two extant eye-witness accounts of the execution. She uses the material very subtly - it's not a woodenly literal reenactment as it were ... but if you read the two historic accounts in conjunction with the scene in Mantel's novel you can see where she derives it from.

What I was more interested in was the language - and how Mantel piles on the tension with short, sharp phrases ... in a long but tightly controlled passage that builds up to a bloody climax. You have short, sharp, monosyllabic or bisyllabic words, lots of verbs ... and then you get the long, drawn out, unusual and multisyllabic 'desanguinated' at the end.

'De ... sang ...uin ... ated ...'

What an unusual choice. But think about it. What better way to convey the sense of blood literally draining from the headless torso.

This ain't a flesh wound ... this is blood, blood, blood, blood, blood ...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I wonder if Mantel has softened Cromwell's role in Anne's downfall. Some historians seem to see him as prime instigator, whereas popular opinion seems to say, Henry wanted new wife, exit Anne. I'm not complaining about it at all; Mantel is focusing on Cromwell not Henry. In any case, she was framed.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if Mantel has softened Cromwell's role in Anne's downfall. Some historians seem to see him as prime instigator, whereas popular opinion seems to say, Henry wanted new wife, exit Anne. I'm not complaining about it at all; Mantel is focusing on Cromwell not Henry. In any case, she was framed.
Was she? Isn't the jury still out? Didn't she get up to some extra-marital naughtiness? Or not?
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
Most historians think she was framed. For her to have lovers would have involved collusion with her ladies in waiting (as with Catherine Howard) who were with her at all times and none of them were implicated (George's wife is generally perceived to have hated the family and framed her husband, she was later excuted for helping Catherine Howard have an affair). Anne was someone who fought to be Queen for years and I very much doubt she would have risked that. Besides, one lover might be believable but that idea she was sleeping with half a dozen is rather stretching belief.
I think the jury is out on who bore most responsibility for Anne's downfall, she was threatening Cromwell at this stage. But Henry was a man who always got his own way and got rid of his first wife and later ones, I don't doubt it only could happen because he wanted it to, even if he chose to pretend otherwise.
I always felt sorry for Catherine Parr, she didn't even want to marry him and was probably in love with someone else. At one point she was threatened with prison but managed to beg her with Henry not to do it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Alison Weir, in her book on Anne, lists all the occasions when she is supposed to have slept with other men, and for many of them, it seems impossible or very unlikely. Thus, she was away, or pregnant, or recently miscarried. I suppose also they stuck in so many men on the list, to make it more abhorrent, but it now makes it look implausible. I wonder if Henry ever felt guilty about it.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Ok, thank you for your replies.

So the likelihood is that Anne was stitched up. The Cromwell of Wolf Hall does come across as a much more sympathetic character than history implies.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think Mantel is having a love affair with Cremuel; they're the best kind, no risk of pregnancy or STDs, and you get total control. The TV version follows suit, since Rylance oozes charisma. I could watch that face for hours, well, one hour.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Mantel is having a love affair with I could watch that face for hours, well, one hour.
He looked just as good on Radio 4 ("Desert Island Discs") last week ...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
In Wolf Hall, he often looks sombre; not surprising really. But in interviews, he seems quite different, mobile, comedic. Gosh, I am gushing like a teenager - I wonder if there's a Rylance duvet cover on sale?
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
I found the legalities interesting in that even the king's actions had to have at least an appearance of legality.
So much of it made me think of Soviet Russia and Stalin's machinations: Solzhenitsyn's "First Circle" in a Tudor context, with Cromwell as Beria. Ultimately everybody - even Henry - was trapped in a complex web larger than any individual.
Stalin was responsible for the death of millions and Beria was a perverted monster. Mantel's Cromwell may be trapped in a web; Beria and Stalin were both spiders, and neither bothered much about the appearance of legality.
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
Is it a female thing with Mark Rylance? I think he oozed charisma as Cromwell, but my husband didn't think he had any.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
Is it a female thing with Mark Rylance? I think he oozed charisma as Cromwell, but my husband didn't think he had any.
I can inform you that there is a male Rylance appreciation society; we meet regularly, watch old movies, and scream into our beer, when Marky appears.

Yours, Hon. Sec., MRAS.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
Is it a female thing with Mark Rylance? I think he oozed charisma as Cromwell, but my husband didn't think he had any.
Charisma? Not sure. He had something, and I really liked the way he played the character. But he was not a likeable character - I would not like to have actually known him, because the character was scheming and manipulative.

But the actor as he came over seemed like a likeable sort of person. if that makes sense.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0